(NATO) Imperialists Hands Off Libya! II

137 posts / 0 new
Last post
Noah_Scape

The news today says Gaddafi's bombardment of oil ports towns of Ras Lanuf and Sidra has pushed the rebels out.

"We've been defeated," a rebel fighter told AFP news agency. "They are shelling and we are running away. That means that they're taking Ras Lanuf."

 

Gaddafi's forces have one advantage - air bombers and artillery fire - but otherwise the rebels can hold their own.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Noah_Scape wrote:

 I say just go ahead and shoot down Gaddafi's jets when they move towards rebel targets. One by one. Do it with drones, whatever. That way, Gaddafi's pilots will lose heart, and possible join the rebels. Classic Art of War stuff.

More like classic illegal intervention in a civil war by imperialist interests.

NDPP

Operation Libya and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23605

"The geopolitical implications of a US-NATO led military intervention directed against Libya are far-reaching. An invasion of Libya under a humanitarian mandate would serve the same corporate interests as the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. The underlying objective is to take posession of Libya's oil reserves, destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country's oil industry, namely transfer the control and ownership of Libya's oil into foreign hands. Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. The objective of US-NATO interference is strategic: it consists of outright theft.."

this is part 2 of MC's 3 parter. Fidel posted 1 above at #86

don't be surprised if the the west simply let's this developing 'civil war' deplete both sides - it can then do a deal with whoever is left standing, and 'make them an offer they can't refuse'

Ghislaine

M. Spector wrote:

Noah_Scape wrote:

 I say just go ahead and shoot down Gaddafi's jets when they move towards rebel targets. One by one. Do it with drones, whatever. That way, Gaddafi's pilots will lose heart, and possible join the rebels. Classic Art of War stuff.

More like classic illegal intervention in a civil war by imperialist interests.

Exactly. I am so sick of the people saying we should intervene (it seems to coming from both left and right).  We should stay out of Libya! Other than rescueing any Canadian citizens that want out, we should resist all attempts to get involved. Look at the complete mess we have made in AFghanistan. Is that what people want to occur in Libya? Hundreds of dead Canadians, thousands of dead Libyans and 10 years from now we are still there?

al-Qa'bong

Where are Rommel and Monty when we need them?

NDPP

Instead, let them enforce a 'no-fly zone' over Gaza

NDPP
Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Rebels retreat from Libyan oil port amid barrage

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

NDPP

The Star in Libya: Gaddafi Warns Rebels 'We're Coming'

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/952214--the-star-in-libya-gadh...

"We expect Canada to stand with us and provide formal recognition.' Mustafa Gheriani, a council spokesman told the Toronto Star. 'We know Canada's history and tradition favouring human rights and human dignity. And we are saying we need you now. Not tomorrow. This is the moment when it can really count.'

pm@pm.gc.ca

West Coast Greeny

Ghislaine wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Noah_Scape wrote:

 I say just go ahead and shoot down Gaddafi's jets when they move towards rebel targets. One by one. Do it with drones, whatever. That way, Gaddafi's pilots will lose heart, and possible join the rebels. Classic Art of War stuff.

More like classic illegal intervention in a civil war by imperialist interests.

Exactly. I am so sick of the people saying we should intervene (it seems to coming from both left and right).  We should stay out of Libya! Other than rescueing any Canadian citizens that want out, we should resist all attempts to get involved. Look at the complete mess we have made in AFghanistan. Is that what people want to occur in Libya? Hundreds of dead Canadians, thousands of dead Libyans and 10 years from now we are still there?

You're kinda late on that one. 1000 to 10,000 Libyans have already been killed by Gaddafi's forces.

A no-fly zone. That is all. The NDP supports it. It involves planes bombing anti-aircraft turrets and runways. This isn't an invasion. No troops will be on the ground. No Canadians will die. Libyans have a stronger chance of avoiding further massacre. This isn't an imperialist takeover.

 

al-Qa'bong

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

Something about leftists' anti-imperialism allowing them to throw the Libyan rebels under the bus - since deleted.

I can see why you deleted that comment.  By its logic, Washington would have to be bombed every time the USA engages in such mischief as training and paying Contras to kill Nicaraguan peasants and Salvadoran nuns...not to mention the regular Arab victims of the last few decades. 

NDPP

sounds good to me...

al-Qa'bong

West Coast Greeny wrote:

A no-fly zone. That is all. The NDP supports it. It involves planes bombing anti-aircraft turrets and runways. This isn't an invasion. No troops will be on the ground. No Canadians will die. Libyans have a stronger chance of avoiding further massacre. 

...and the boys will be home by Christmas...

welder welder's picture

West Coast Greeny wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Noah_Scape wrote:

 I say just go ahead and shoot down Gaddafi's jets when they move towards rebel targets. One by one. Do it with drones, whatever. That way, Gaddafi's pilots will lose heart, and possible join the rebels. Classic Art of War stuff.

More like classic illegal intervention in a civil war by imperialist interests.

Exactly. I am so sick of the people saying we should intervene (it seems to coming from both left and right).  We should stay out of Libya! Other than rescueing any Canadian citizens that want out, we should resist all attempts to get involved. Look at the complete mess we have made in AFghanistan. Is that what people want to occur in Libya? Hundreds of dead Canadians, thousands of dead Libyans and 10 years from now we are still there?

You're kinda late on that one. 1000 to 10,000 Libyans have already been killed by Gaddafi's forces.

A no-fly zone. That is all. The NDP supports it. It involves planes bombing anti-aircraft turrets and runways. This isn't an invasion. No troops will be on the ground. No Canadians will die. Libyans have a stronger chance of avoiding further massacre. This isn't an imperialist takeover.

 

 

Precisely...

 

The only mi,itary advantage Khaddaffi's army has is air superiority.Let's face the facts,a rag tag bunch of poorly trained rebels have held of Mo's "elite" forces fairly well.

 

The only thing to do is take out guidance installations and level a few airfield...

The rest can be done with drones.

 

The other option is to sit back and let Khaddaffi's murderous thugs do their work and turn the tide back.Then all of these people who have tried to fight for their freedom will surly end up dead...

 

And doubtless,the same people crying about possible intervention will be crying over why we sat back and did nothing...

Jingles

Why don't we just use mustard gas on the [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html]uncivilized tribes[/url] of recalcitrant Arabs?

No muss, no fuss, just a few teeny little bombs, no Canadians would be harmed, the NDP would fall over themselves supporting it, and it would just blow away after, leaving the precious oil installations intact.

No doubt all you pansy liberals will cry over that too.

-----------------------------------------

Remember folks: It's always Year Zero here in the cozy confines of Empire. The fact that up until three weeks ago, Quaddafi was a valued ally in the War on Terrah, or that his "murderous thugs" weren't a particular concern to Tony Blair and Clinton, or that the same tactics the Libyan government is using against its insurgency are the very same used by the staunch allies Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and satrapy Iraq are of no consequence to those whom have suddenly discovered they give a shit about Libyans.

So while the Iraqi puppet is praised for "restraint", and the Bahraini kingdom is ignored, it's "Bombs Away, Mummar!" all over again. Just like when Reagan killed  saved his little girl because....well, why the hell not?

Fuck all you Responsibliity to Protect humanitarian intervention assholes with a jack hammer, you fucking imperialist tools. And fuck the NDP for jumping on the bombs away bandwagon. 

welder welder's picture

Jingles wrote:

Why don't we just use mustard gas on the [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHU407A.html]uncivilized tribes[/url] of recalcitrant Arabs?

No muss, no fuss, just a few teeny little bombs, no Canadians would be harmed, the NDP would fall over themselves supporting it, and it would just blow away after, leaving the precious oil installations intact.

No doubt all you pansy liberals will cry over that too.

-----------------------------------------

Remember folks: It's always Year Zero here in the cozy confines of Empire. The fact that up until three weeks ago, Quaddafi was a valued ally in the War on Terrah, or that his "murderous thugs" weren't a particular concern to Tony Blair and Clinton, or that the same tactics the Libyan government is using against its insurgency are the very same used by the staunch allies Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and satrapy Iraq are of no consequence to those whom have suddenly discovered they give a shit about Libyans.

So while the Iraqi puppet is praised for "restraint", and the Bahraini kingdom is ignored, it's "Bombs Away, Mummar!" all over again. Just like when Reagan killed  saved his little girl because....well, why the hell not?

Fuck all you Responsibliity to Protect humanitarian intervention assholes with a jack hammer, you fucking imperialist tools. And fuck the NDP for jumping on the bombs away bandwagon. 

 

Spectacular..

 

So you would prefer we take a "hands off" approach and allow Mo to murder those who would stand up against him???

 

Because he will...

 

What will you cry be then???

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

My cry will be "STOP IMPERIALISM!"

 

Got that?

 

Let the Libyan people decide.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

For themselves.

welder welder's picture

RevolutionPlease wrote:

My cry will be "STOP IMPERIALISM!"

 

Got that?

 

Let the Libyan people decide.

 

Ah...

 

So it IS "Hands Off and do nothing"...

 

In otherwords,stand by and watch Mo turn the desert red with the blood of people trying to fight for their freedom...

 

That's a spectacular position...

 

It's also called "Morally Bankrupt"....

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

welder wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

My cry will be "STOP IMPERIALISM!"

 

Got that?

 

Let the Libyan people decide.

 

Ah...

 

So it IS "Hands Off and do nothing"...

 

In otherwords,stand by and watch Mo turn the desert red with the blood of people trying to fight for their freedom...

 

That's a spectacular position...

 

It's also called "Morally Bankrupt"....

 

Perhaps, you don't get it

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Morally Bankrupt?  Good stuff we got here.

welder welder's picture

Oh..I get it...

 

I know what cowardice dressed up as a viable position is...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong,but does'nt "let the Libyan people decide" sound like code for "don't intervene at all"? 

Fidel

Well this is one of those times that I do not agree with the NDP.

NDPP

"We in the New Democratic Party accept that the use of force is sometimes necessary in grave humanitarian crises, when all efforts at diplomatic settlement have failed. We believe this meets that test." Globe and Mail March 27 1999

Hey you nato no fly zone guys, have I got a political party for you...

 

best re-read some of the upthread links again before accepting/inviting Hannibal Lector's 'humanitarian intervention' in Libya.

NDPP

Fidel wrote:

Well this is one of those times that I do not agree with the NDP.

NDPP

all is not lost after all..Wink

Fidel

I sent an email to them asking what in hell they were thinking.

NDPP

the ndp will never oppose empire

A_J

Jingles wrote:

So while the Iraqi puppet is praised for "restraint", and the Bahraini kingdom is ignored, it's "Bombs Away, Mummar!" all over again. Just like when Reagan killed  saved his little girl because....well, why the hell not?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while people have also died in protests in Iraq and Behrain, I don't recall Prime Minister al-Maliki or King al-Khalifa ordering their respective air forces to bomb anyone.

Different situations and different.  Who would have imagined?

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Let the Libyan people decide.

What if the Libyan people decide that they want assistance?

Ghislaine

welder wrote:

 

 

The other option is to sit back and let Khaddaffi's murderous thugs do their work and turn the tide back.Then all of these people who have tried to fight for their freedom will surly end up dead...

 

And doubtless,the same people crying about possible intervention will be crying over why we sat back and did nothing...

welder, do you want me to list every country in the world where the government is committing atrocities on its own people? To start with, the countries only targetting women and girls and instituting gender apartheid rarely get a mentiion if it is considered "peaceful" from the male perspective.

Do you want us to go into every one of these countries? If not, why Libya only? Instituting a no-fly zone would be an illegal act of war.

 

 

A_J

BBC - James Clapper says Libya's Muammar Gaddafi will prevail

Quote:

James Clapper told the US Senate that Col Gaddafi's superior military force would prevail over the long term.

And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would not act in Libya without international authorisation.

. . .

Mrs Clinton said the US would meet representatives of the Libyan opposition, but emphasised the US would not undertake military action unilaterally.

"We're looking to see whether there is any willingness in the international community to provide any authorisation for further steps," she told a panel of the US House of Representatives.

"Absent international authorisation, the US acting alone would be stepping into a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable."

The hysteria we're hearing from some people about an "imperialist take over" of Libya being a foregone conclusion increasingly rings a little hollow, doesn't it?

NDPP

Britain Fears Huge Loss in Libya

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169215.html

"According to what British officials say privately, there is a more pragmatic concern, based on whether David Cameron would be forced to intervene in the crisis stricken North African country to save UK's vast oil investments in Libya. Thus the British Prime Minister is worried that a large and sudden loss of BP revenues in Libya would damage his government's tax base badly at a moment when Britain is struggling to recover from a deep recession.."

Fidel

NDPP wrote:

the ndp will never oppose empire

Do we really need to produce a list of the times the NDP has done just that?

NDPP

Nicolas Sarkozy Calls for Air Strikes on Libya if Gaddafi Attacks Civilians

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/nicolas-sarkozy-libya-air-st...

"The strikes would be solely of a defensive nature if Mr Gaddafi makes use of chemical weapons or airstrikes against non-violent protesters, 'Sarkozy said. The French president qualified his remarks by saying he had many reservations about military intervention in Libya 'because Arab revolutions belong to Arabs.'

The tough Anglo-French rhetoric has been met with deep scepticism across the EU. Sarkozy's unilateral decision to recognize Libya's transitional council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people was seen as grossly premature. 'Sarkozy is being irresponsible,' one EU diplomat said. Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister said: 'I find it a crazy move by France. To jump ahead and say 'I will recognize a transitional government in the face of any diplomatic practice, is not the solution for Libya..."

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

The hysteria we're hearing from some people about an "imperialist take over" of Libya being a foregone conclusion increasingly rings a little hollow, doesn't it?

 

Just wait, A_J. It's all a trick! They'll probably march in backward so it will look like they're leaving.

A_J

Snert wrote:

Quote:

The hysteria we're hearing from some people about an "imperialist take over" of Libya being a foregone conclusion increasingly rings a little hollow, doesn't it?

Just wait, A_J. It's all a trick! They'll probably march in backward so it will look like they're leaving.

On a more serious note - the "anti-imperialists" loudly boast about adhering to the principle of non-intervention . . . but I wonder to what extent the hysteria that they're whipping up, the daily pronouncements in Counter PunchGlobal Research and Press TV (a mouth-piece of the Iranian regime, let's not forget) about how Libya is set to become the 51st state by the end of the week, embolden and support Ghaddafi's regime?

By providing the propaganda that he needs to falsly paint this rebellion as the work of foreigners, the monarchy and the oil companies, aren't they just doing Ghaddafi's job for him?  How can they still claim to support Libyans deciding the matter for themselves without foreign influence?

MegB

Closed for length.

Pages

Topic locked